The public policy-confused Boss Godfrey performs yet another 180-degree political flip-flop
We link here this morning's Standard-Examiner story, which reports the most bizarre plot twist yet of the 2007 municipal campaign season, whereby Boss Godfrey suddenly assumes the mantle of "Champion of Mt. Ogden Parklands Open Space" -- "Lord Protector of Our Pristine Trails and Foothills."
Q: And who is the evil parkland plunderer foe whom Boss Godfrey has now pledged to vanquish?
A: None other than Boss Godfrey himself, weirdly enough.
Possible new Boss Godfrey campaign slogan: "We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us."
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
31 comments:
UNBELIEVABLE NEWS!!
Press Release from the Mayor’s Office just announced:
MAYOR GODFREY COMMITS TO LAND SALE RESTRICTIONS OGDEN, UTAH – September 24, 2007 -- The Mount Ogden Golf Course and Park will have Restrictive Covenants placed upon them to assure their future as open space and public use going forward.
“Some people have expressed concern that after November’s election I would renege on my commitment to not sell the golf course. This action will make my intentions clear to preserve this area,” said Mayor Matthew Godfrey.
The signed legal document should be completed in the next two to three weeks, when legal counsel has finished its drafting and review. The purpose of the document will be to restrict the use of this property to public purposes in perpetuity. It would not allow for homes or other private uses and will secure the public access to trails and open space on this land. KUDOS to Susie Van Hooser!!! I was at the meeting when, speaking as a Council member, she asked the Mayor to check and see if there was some way that the City could protect the Mt. Ogden Golf Course and Park from ever being sold to a private developer!! KUDOS to all those who have applied pressure to the Mayor on this blog, in person, by telephone and emails! Of course, we all know that he is running scared that he won’t be elected and that played a big part in this announcement.
But it looks as though our hero and star, Dan Schroeder, is being cautious about this news. We trust your judgment, Dan, and appreciate your efforts to hold the media to their responsibility investigate the news. KUDOS!! to Dan! Below is his letter to the media:
“Dear members of the press:
The Ogden Sierra Club has just received a copy of the news release titled "Mayor Godfrey Commits to Land Sale Restrictions." While we welcome the general sentiment expressed in the news release, this announcement raises a number of important questions. We hope you will ask these questions and insist on clear answers as you follow-up with the mayor.
Question 1: Would the new restrictions apply to all of the greater Mt. Ogden Park complex, or only to the developed park and golf course? The Mt. Ogden Park complex includes three distinct areas: The 25-acre developed park along Taylor Avenue; the 125-acre golf course; and 60 acres of adjoining lands to the east and south, generally covered in native vegetation, where most of the trails are located. A map of the three distinct areas is posted at:
http://utah.sierraclub.org/ogden/OgdenFront/GondolaRemainsPriority.html. In the past, the mayor has generally used the term "park" to refer only to the 25-acre developed park.
Question 2: What does it mean to "restrict the use of this property to public purposes"? Could the land still be sold or traded into private ownership? What restrictions or fees could be imposed on public access? Could new roads still be constructed across the land?
Question 3: Will the "restrictive covenants" be legally enforceable? The legality of restrictions such as these, imposed unilaterally by a local government, has been challenged in the past. How can the public know that the restrictions would be enforceable? What would prevent a future city government from removing the restrictive covenants?
Question 4: If it is the mayor's intent to prohibit any residential
development of foothill lands that are currently owned by the city, then what are the "different areas" in the foothills where the mayor believes development might still occur, as reported by the Standard-Examiner on July 8?
Until the actual legal document is made available to the public and
scrutinized by legal experts, the Sierra Club urges caution in judging the meaning of the mayor's announcement.
Dan Schroeder, Conservation Chair
Sierra Club, Ogden Group”
THERE IS HOPE IN OGDEN TODAY!! BUT DON'T LET THIS NEWS CHANGE FOR WHOM YOU VOTE for mayor – remember the debt and unnecessary lawsuits that he has brought upon Ogden! Remember the way he works with the City Council whom we elected to run the City WITH the Mayor!!!
(Originally posted to Weber County Forum at September 24, 2007 3:46 PM under a separate article)
I am afraid that the ever vigilant Dan left one very important question unasked. Would the restrictive covenants also forbid the leasing of the golf course and operation to any outside entity or management group?
I saw the mayor at the Ogden East Stake party (where I had put two large VanHooser signs across the street at two houses), and thought how nice it would be for the golf course issue to come off the table.
I feel the mayor, if he is sincere, could do a good job of putting us at ease on this issue.
But we will have to see what the legal document actually says. With such things, the wording and the details are everything.
I had hoped he would look at getting secure easements for all the trails, including the ones on private property, as well as placing all the city land on the bench off limits for development.
But this will raise the issue, which is good.
ON the Mayor's Press release:
Presuming it means what it appears to mean, it is good news. But we ought to note three things about this really amazing press release:
(1) In it, the Mayor acknowledges that he is so widely distrusted in Ogden that his word is not considered good by the people of Ogden that he must back it up with a legally binding commitment of some sort. That is a truly astonishing admission, four weeks from the election, by an incumbent seeking another term, and a good measure of just how badly his gondola obsession and its allied projects [which once included the park sale] have divided this city.
(2) It is plain that without the press of the approaching election he would not have issued his first statement of some weeks ago taking the park sale "off the table," and that without his having lost 60% of the vote in the primary, he would not be moving to legally lock in the "public" nature of the land "in perpetuity." [His polling on the park lands sale to build his gondola must have been absolutely blood-curdling.]
And finally, (3) though the word "gondola" does not appear in his press release, I suspect he is hoping, hard, that most people will take this latest move to mean "the gondola is dead." It isn't, of course, as he's told some people when he was out canvassing this week, and as his surrogates, like Mr. Hardman --- head of the Ogden-Weber Chamber of Commerce --- keeps assuring people. ["The gondola will happen," he told one person when the Mayor first took the park sale off the table some weeks ago. "This is just a temporary setback."]
Those who oppose a third term for Godfrey need to make it plain to people that this latest move, while good for Ogden [presuming as I said that it means what it seems to mean], does not in any way mean his gondola obsession has been abandoned.
[I would love to see his polling figures on the park sale to build a gondola issue. Must have made his blood run cold when he and his campaign manager saw the results.]
We live in interesting times....
With out transfering the land to an outside entity, trust of some sort, nothing this lying little SOB does, will be binding on future administrations and councils.
If (God forbid) he got re-elected, and his gondola loving triad of stephanson clones were to win (peterson,johnson and blockhead eccles) he could, with his new yes man gondola worshipping lot just draft a brand new deal for themselves.
It's impossible to bind future councils by ordinance.
Dear voters, don't fall for one of this disengenuous lying little bad lepricon's attempts to exibit a change in his leanings.He just got caught in another big lie this week with the UTA.
Word is (from a stooge in the lying camp) that if this ploy don't poll out, next week lying little matty is going to promise to bring back the street festival.
I've just been reminded that the City Council was actually working on putting some restictions on the Mt. Ogden Park property. Apparently the mayor got wind of this and decided to preempt them and take the credit.
However, this is a very difficult and complex issue, legally. I don't know where the Council was in the process, but I can easily imagine that the process stalled when they realized that to draft such a document would require many hours of legal work. The Council has an independent attorney on contract, but doesn't have the budget to pay that attorney to take on large projects.
The mayor, on the other hand, has the city attorney and his entire staff at his disposal. Perhaps, if they drop everything else they're doing, they can get something drafted and reviewed within the mayor's 3-week time frame. Even so, it will be a hasty job and I don't know how anyone will be able to tell whether the document would hold up in court.
Dan...
What is up with the mayor?
All that needs to be done here, is for the mayor to bring out the original document that has the covenants already written in it. Ask the mayor where is it. Did he lose it? It was in his custody was it not?
just watch,
I too have heard rumors of such a document, but they're just rumors. Unless you can produce a credible witness who will testify on record to the existence of the document, the rumors aren't very useful.
There is, of course, the 1962 city ordinance dedicating the park for public use. But that's just an ordinance, and any ordinance can be amended or repealed by the city council.
It's very difficult, legally, for the government to tie its own hands in perpetuity.
Dan:
You wrote: It's very difficult, legally, for the government to tie its own hands in perpetuity.
That's the understatement of the year. It may be impossible. Be interesting to see what the Administration comes up with. It would be wise of them to work closely with the Council in crafting this.
The only such covenants I'm aware of that have worked have been restrictions built into donations of land to public bodies, providing that the land shall revert to the original owners or their descendants in the event the city [state] uses the land for some purpose other than that for which it was donated and accepted. But this land is already public land, so that kind of restriction wouldn't apply here, seems to me.
Going to be interesting. I don't think the idea of anything existing "in perpetuity" is something the laws generally look upon tolerantly... or even allow.
I suspect we will end up with something preserving the land in its present use in so far as it is possible to do that. Not perfect, of course, but not chopped liver either.
We shall see. As usual, the devil is in the details.
Dan and Just Watch, Greg Montgomery has searched everywhere for this deed from the Malan family to Ogden stipulating that it remain open space. He claims that the Malan family did not "GIVE" that land to the City, but rather sold it to the City. So the City can do whatever it wants with it.
As far as the restrictive covenant goes, other cities along the Wasatch Front have done it or put their open space in trust which was a very expensive way to go.
I really doubt that the Mayor would have the Council/Council staff help with it -- my goodness, that would according to his thinking be degrading to lower himself to their level. I understand when they have the WACOG dinners and other dinners, he won't sit with the Council as other Mayors do -- he sits with another mayor who doesn't have very many council members attending. He is pitiful!!
If we all hold our collective breath waiting for "protection", we shall all be blue in the face.
Don't ever trust anything this little sociopath says.
He's had 8 yrears to put these public lands in safekeeping "in perpetuity"....he's just running scared now, and the SE is in his dark corner.
They should register with the State as part of Godfrey's campaign team...helping solicit doanations too.
Hope we have a huge turnout at Mt Ogden Middle School tonite.
Rudi:
You wrote: And who is the evil pro-development foe whom Boss Godfrey has pledged to vanquish? None other than Boss Godfrey himself, weirdly enough. Possible new Boss Godfrey campaign slogan: "We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us."
Nice! Very nice! The Pogo quote caught it perfectly.
Just thinking... sometimes here [and in my classes] people complain that elections have no point, they don't matter a hill o' beans, etc.
Well, we've just had evidence that they do. Remarkable, isn't it, how the approaching election has clarified Mayor Godfrey's thinking on Mt. Ogden Park Golf Course and the adjacent park lands? Only months ago he was still insisting that Ogden's salvation, its only hope to reverse its "long slide" into economic stagnation was to sell the parklands to Chris Peterson for a real estate development, and to take the proceeds to build a city gondola.
Then the primary approached, Godfrey read his polling data, and suddenly the park sale was "off the table" and the Peterson residential community to be built on that land was pronounced never to have really been possible at all. Then the primary happened, and 60% of the voters said they didn't want Godfrey back again. Within days, he decided that taking the park sale "off the table" was not good enough. Now he's recast himself as the park's protector, laboring to devise a legal way to preserve it for the people of Ogden "in perpetuity."
Who knows? Given two more weeks and another poll indicating how badly his clinging to his weird flatland Ogden gondola will hurt him at the polls, and we may see Mayor Godfrey announcing that "I have completed my extensive three-year review of transit options for Ogden and have concluded that a street car line from downtown to WSU and McKay Dee hospital is the best option for the City, and I call on the Council to opt for cooperation for the common good by joining me to help make it happen."
See? Elections can matter. A lot.
Ogden--Weber Chamber of Commerce didn't get the memo?
I just went over to the OGden-Weber Chamber of Commerce web page to see what those up-to-the-minute hard-nosed practical where-the-rubber-meets-the-road businessmen had to say about the park sale for real estate development plan the Mayor now opposes because it was never practical in the first place. And look what I found:
The following are key elements regarding the proposed Malan’s Basin Project:
· The sale of the Mount Ogden Golf Course property will take place in return for a much improved golf facility open to the public....
· Proceeds from the sale of the golf course property will pay for the majority of the community
gondola system and the remainder will be funded through private sources....
Didn't the Council's President and CEO, Mr. Dave Hardman, get the Mayor's memo? The plan was never feasible and the Mayor now is crusading to protect the golf course and parklands as public assets forever. [Urgent Message: Mr. Hardman, call the Mayor's office immediately!]
You can view the Chamber's continuing embarrassment here.
I think the city needs to involve another and totally separate entity into this open space business.
Perhaps the "Trust for Public Lands". There could be others big enough and permanent enough to suit the bill. The idea is that the development rights to the land is deeded over to the organization in perpetuity. Therefore future city governments can't cancel the whole deal and build fourplexes.
That is the way the deal with the big ranch property up in Cashe count a couple of months ago. Of course that was private property put into perpetual open space. I don't know how this angle might work with city owned property.
It is rather disturbing to think that the future generations may have to keep fighting these battles against future idiot politicians like we have now. Unfortunately there will always be some one like Godfrey lurking in the shadows waiting to take control and place their own bad smell all over the city. The Mount Ogden Park will always be a very enticing delicacy to these overly ambitious overly hungry turkeys.
I do find it hilarious for Godfrey to now position himself as the savior of the Mount Ogden open spaces! As my old Grandma used to say: "The poor fool has more brass than a government mule!" It will be real interesting to see how many of the voters of Ogden will really buy into this latest disingenuous move the little prick is trying to run on them.
I predict that if and when Godfrey produces some firm documentation on this promise, that we will see a whole different deal described than what trickles off his lying little lips today. I don't know of any examples of the end result looking like what Matt says it will when he pitches it in the beginning.
The one 3 year lie of Matt's that I remember most is the one where he repeatedly swore to and promised all citizens far and wide that we would never be financially responsible for the success or failure of the new Bowling alley anchored mall. The financial risk would always be on the developers and the project. In the end, the tax payers and property owners and citizens of Ogden was very much on the hook and fully responsible for every penny it may end up costing and losing.
Bottom line is that pretty much everything that comes out of the lyin little bastard's lips is - well a lie.
Oz:
The problem is, Oz, that the city cannot I think simply give away land. Even to something like the "Trust for Public Lands." It has, I think, by law to either sell or trade for something of comparable fair market value. And given [as well we all now know] the value of undeveloped benchlands in Ogden, that would involve lotsa dinero.
Some deep-pockets philanthropist could, I suppose, buy the lands from the city and then donate them to the Trust. Or someone could donate other land to the Trust... say Malan's Basin maybe?... and the Trust could then swap the basin lands to the city for the bench lands.
But I don't think a flat out donation of public property is possible.
With respect to the ability for city governments or any government for that matter to bind future generations to its enactments: not only is it probably legally and Constitutionally impossible, it also flies in the face with one of the founding ideals of this country. A little thing called popular sovereignty. The ability of the people, and each generation of the people, to rule themselves. Many back in 1776 saw the absence of this principle as a problem with the British system - the Crown was restored in 1688 by Parliament, granting the King and his heirs certain monarchical powers in perpetuity. Fine with Parliament to grant one King such powers, but Parliament cannot bind its grandkids to the power of the King's grandson, or so said Thomas Paine. This is a large part of the reason for Article V of the U.S. Constitution dealing with the amendment process - to give future generations the option of changing aspects of the Constitution that they don't like. For the Mayor or Council or both to declare Mt Ogden golf course and it's surrounding public lands off limits in perpetuity would be an act of tyranny, really, over future generations, denying them the chance to make their own decision about the lands. So, even in trying to do the right thing, Godfrey may end up playing the role of the tyrant. Imagine that.
I will be interested to see how he plans on pulling off the in perpetuity covenant with respect to public lands. May be another example of Godfrey speaking without thinking something through first.
Cato:
Exactly. My students are often surprised to learn that all the rights guaranteed them in the Constitution can removed by amendment. "Even the ban on slavery?" they ask? Yes, even that. "Even women's voting?" Yes, even that. "Even free speech?" Yes, even that. I find it surprising [well, ok, appalling] that they are surprised by learning that. But they are, many of them. Every year. [Which sometimes... when I get lucky... starts them asking about the difference between "inalienable rights" [aka human rights/natural rights/God-given rights] and legislative rights such as are in the Constitution. When I get lucky. Which is not every year.]
I suppose a private donor might be able to bind the public down through time via a restrictive use clause in a donation of land. But even there, the power of eminent domain could be used by an elected government years to make the land public and so get around that.
Chewy post, Cato. Obliged.
It aint like the friggen wheel needs to get re-invented here boys. I figure if NooYorkCity can protect and preserve Central Park from the encroachment of unbridled capitalistic greed and manipulations, then the laws and the angles have got to be there in writin somewhere. Every major city in the Western world has vast public permanent open spaces. It just seems to me that it is not that damn hard to set off public land as untouchable for all time to come. You don't see them building condo's in Chapultepec park now do you? Believe me there is no end to the dreamers that have that exact vision.
Great point, Victor!
Here's an overview of Golden Gate Park, a totally protected parkland in yet another great American city, which sits "protected" in the middle of the most expensive and most densely-populated real estate in America, acre for acre.
Somehow... the citizens of San Francisco, California managed to protect it for posterity, despite the continuing pressure of greedy developers.
Victor, you are correct that every major city in the Western world has vast public open spaces. Whether they are permanent? I doubt it. But if they are popular enough no politicians try to sell them off. Maybe Godfrey should've checked on how popular Mt Ogden park was before he started telling us the future of the city depended on selling it to Chris Peterson. All the stuff I've read on Central Park NYC makes no mention of it being designated as a permanent park. Reason why Central Park in NYC has not been developed is because the vast majority of NYers want to keep it. Simply put, I don't think public land can be set aside as untouchable for all time to come, as you suggest. Even Yellowstone Park could be eliminated through an act of Congress, just as it was an act of Congress that established it. Again, not likely that it will happen.
Per Cato: "Reason why Central Park in NYC has not been developed is because the vast majority of NYers want to keep it."
Has Boss Godfrey learned this lesson late into his eighth year in office?
Too funny.
Rudi, what makes Golden Gate Park "totally protected"? Nothing in the link you provided says anything about it being protected in perpetuity. My guess is, as with Central Park in NYC, that it would be political suicide for any city council members of mayors of NYC or SF to try and do away with these parks by selling off the lands, rezoning them for development, etc., etc. But I've yet to see any designation of either park as a park in perpetuity. I may be wrong, but so far I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise.
And as for Central Park's protection... no small part of it rests on the fact that many many very powerful people in NY live in the multi-million dollar condos surrounding the park, a view of which is a key element in the prestige attached to those addresses. It's not the great unwashed who're looking out for Central Park. It's the city's movers and shakers.
Cato: "Rudi, what makes Golden Gate Park "totally protected"?"
History verifies that, Cato. Never did we suggest that any of this has come about by "government edict."
Curmudgeon has a viable theory on that:
"And as for Central Park's protection... no small part of it rests on the fact that many many very powerful people in NY live in the multi-million dollar condos surrounding the park, a view of which is a key element in the prestige attached to those addresses. It's not the great unwashed who're looking out for Central Park. It's the city's movers and shakers."
Notably, many Emerald City "movers and shakers" live adjacent to MT. Ogden park.
Coincidence? We don't know.
The SE article states:
"Godfrey believes an urban gondola ... can still be built if Peterson finds a way to fund the project."
And why would Peterson fund it if he can't develop his resort without Mt Ogden Park? By his own words, Godfrey admits the urban gondola isn't feasible!
Sharon,
I guess that when some shoots in the air or at the ducks that is ok. I thought shooting in the city limits was against the law already. Did the mayor say anything about those idiots about breaking the law?
It was a good meeting, but lying little matty did not get thru it without committing another ego driven gaff.
After the comunity plan was wrapped up, there were regular public comments, as per council meeting norms. Rep. Hansen displayed his map with the 132 dots that represent gunshots in the city since Jan. 1 thru July, and asked the Council for input and help with a bill he'll be offering in the next legislature.
During the mayor comment portion he proceeded to downplay the relevance of the map and number of dots. He did this by telling some story about a guy by the rail yard firing a gun in the air, saying there were more than 1 call on that one, then proceeded to blame BB guns and car backfires.
This as we prepare to bury one more of our comunity shot and killed just 5 days ago.
Lets see, he markets and touts some new phone number on the eve of the primary, the last 4 digits spell help, in an effort to fool only the blindest of ostriches that he's tough on crime. Now when citizens produce statistics he does not like by calling the police, he belittles them, cars backfiring and BB guns. These residents must have real good hearing to hear a BB gun fired accross the street or down the block, from inside their own home.
I have to wonder if any of those dots represent a BB gun, I seriously doubt it.
Could be he's truely unconcerned, he said it was just a couple of hoodlums, and after this weekends arrest he's caught the second one.
Just the Facts...
Of course he didn't say anything abut the shooters of ducks and in the air as being lawbraekers. That would up his crime stats he's worked so diligently to lower.
"We investigate every shooting". Does that mean he does a 'ride-along 'with the cops? Ohhhh lucky ones who draw him for a partner!
BTW..can't fnd my post that you replied to. hmmmmm
Don't be fooled. Peterson's land is now "worthless."
Now Peterson is going to want to sell it to the city.
Now Godfrey can claim he is for "open space."
It's another way for his business buddies to get a hold of our tax money.
The Republican County Commissioners have been doing this for years.
Post a Comment